Polyamory and you

[Barrister]

Even historically, there has been little prejudice in our culture against marital unfaithfulness as perpetrated by men.

While there has been some degree of double standard, I simply must disagree that there has been no historic prejudice against male infidelity.

[MadImmortalMan]

One woman is almost one too many. I prefer a low-drama lifestyle. 

[DisturbedPervert]

Female infidelity will never be tolerated by males to the same extent it is the other direction.  The drive to ensure exclusive vagina access and not raise other men's children if imputing resources in to her is too strong.

[Martim Silva]

In my country, there is a saying: "The perfect wife is the one who has no ears"... and is thus unable to hear about her husbands' infidelities.

Which is how we dealt with the whole issue over the centuries. Males could get as many mistresses as they wanted to (though poor people usually stayed just with the wife) and the rest did whatever they wanted.

The wife itself represented a commitment to her family, and the kids from that marriage were those who inherited.

Today, things changed with the ideas of "gender equality". Women are much less willing to accept male traditional behaviour - wich spiked the divorce rate - and the bastards now got inheritance rights, too (which created some nasty surprises in my family, with some adult guys suddenly appearing at the door and saying "hello, brother/sister"*).

EDIT: Needless to say, if I marry I want exclusive rights. And I'm always the one who calls the shots in my relationships.

*: For 35 years I thought I only had one cousin in front of me for the main bulk of the inheritance, and I had already worn his health down quite dramatically. Suddenly I had three guys ahead. And one is as devious as me**

**: He found out last year he has diabetes. Is there a way to get rid of someone like that without suspicion?

[Caliga]

**: He found out last year he has diabetes. Is there a way to get rid of someone like that without suspicion?

"You should try this delicacy from the American South I just learned about called 'sweet tea', cousin Larry!"

[Martim Silva]

"You should try this delicacy from the American South I just learned about called 'sweet tea', cousin Larry!"
[/quote]

I'll look into that. 

[Malthus]

Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

The reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

The real issue is whether folks are, or are likely to be, happier with some sort of exclusive arrangement (whether this is actually permanent or merely intended to be). I suspect that, where there is an assumption of equality, the answer is gonna be "yes" for most. Multiples have historically worked best where there was no intention that the parties be equal, as in either some sort of harem or in an arrangement where a patriarchal man (usually) has acknowledged mistresses and the wife is expected not to mind.

The insistance on truthfulness, openness, non-jealousy and equality which is the basis of modern poly theory sounds great - utopian in fact. The problem appears to be that very few are really capable of sufficient detachment to be fully truthful, fully open, free from jealosy and totally equal. 

Indeed, such detachment appears to me only possible if one views sex as being essentially unimportant to a relationship, the equivalent of mutually enjoying a good meal or a nice movie, stripped free of romantic pretensions and ego-affirmation. I'm not sure I'd want that. The reward of variety doesn't seem to be worth the loss of meaning.

[Drakken]

. Our scientific knowledge of human reproduction behaviors has long killed the myth that humans were as much monogamic as gorillas. 

"our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible

Suggestion - your argument would be stronger if you didn't try to wrap it up in unconvinving pseudo-scientific appeals to "nature".  Eg. the "myth" that men don't act as "monogamic as gorillas" because of their "repitilian instincts"

That ad hominem was rather uncalled for. Yeah, it is an argument from nature, because human reproductive behavior is part of nature AND we have instincts as much as other animals, especially hominids (which we are a part of). And I mind my audience. I am not in front of the Royal Society of Sciences, but arguing with people who are as likely as I am to use silliness and hyperbole to present their points in good heart and fun. We won't change sociobiology today by this discussion.

I don't claim monogamy or polygamy is better or worse or put it in normative manner because it is natural and other behaviors are artificial, which is why an "appeal to nature" really is. Both forms are present in nature in many species and subspecies, and both sides may - and do - argue where we humans lay on the spectrum. I may lay in the "poly" side of the spectrum, but both Valmy and BB can argue from the "mono" side with equally good arguments.

If you disagree about the claim, or the way I have presented the claim, your argument would be stronger if you countered it factually and argued where I am wrong, in other words keep it on the claim (which is that humans, despite socialization and normative issues, are instictively wired to go for more than one partner, either in serial or in parallel, and that our current definition of monogamy and faithfulness isn't adapted to that reality) instead ot attacking the form, whatever the way you may qualify it.

How is saying "your argument sucks ass" an ad hominem?

You suck ass. Ad hominem.

Your argumentation is akin to that of a pre schooler. Not ad hominem.

Ad hominems are not necessarily personal attacks, but also include attacking the form used by the arguer and use it as an argument against the claim. By attacking the arguer's choice of rhetoric in normative terms (as in this or that word is "pseudo-scientific", used here gratuitously loaded as a normative judgement without any argument as to why it is pseudo-scientific), rather than the claim being presented, it makes it an ad hominem.

I am still waiting for his argument why it is "pseudo-scientific", i.e. when and how it was debunked. Demonstrating the pseudo-scientificity of my claim wouldn't be complicated. I just need how, why, and by whom it was debunked.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. In other words, it is an argument which attacks the individual rather than the argument that individual is presenting.[1]

And your "you suck ass, ad hominem" is not ad hominem. If you had said "you argument is false because you suck ass", now it would be ad hominem.

Now return to your water painting course at the kindergarten, kiddie. Leave it to the grown-ups. 

[Drakken]

So Drakkan is into polyamory and he's a member of the pick-up "community"?

Seems a bit contradictory as modern polyamory, allegedly, is all about openness, trust, communication and honesty and being a pick-up "artist" is all about manipulation and exploiting peoples' insecurities.

How can you be open and honest and communicate with a woman to get eventually in a polyamory relationship, if you can't get in her pants first?

But of course, to Mr Jacob nice guys never finish last, and developing confidence and pushing women's buttons to get her interest level go up are all con tricks to get girls in bed against their will, which is pure nonsense. I wonder then why so few chumps have success with the ladies even to get into even into the simplest and most basic monogamous relationship, if Jacob is so right.

And anyway, it's a nice strawman you've built for us, Jacob. I am not discussing the so-called seduction community here, I did not even evoke it once, but the viabilty - or absence of viability - of polyamory relationships.

[Malthus]

How can you be open and honest and communicate with a woman to get eventually in a polyamory relationship, if you can't get in her pants first?

But of course, to Mr Jacob nice guys never finish last, and developing confidence pushing women's buttons are con tricks to get girls in bed against their will, which is pure nonsense. I wonder then why so few chumps have success with the ladies even to get into even into the simplest and most basic monogamous relationship.

And anyway, it's a strawman. I am not discussing the so-called seduction community here, I did not even evoke it once, but the viabilty - or absence of viability - of polyamory relationships.

I suspect the difference is one of attitude - seeing a woman more as a lock to be picked and less as a relationship to be developed.

I can see how that sort of detachment would work well with poly-ness; indeed, it may be required to an extent. Of course, the woman has to see you in the same light.

[Drakken]

How can you be open and honest and communicate with a woman to get eventually in a polyamory relationship, if you can't get in her pants first?

But of course, to Mr Jacob nice guys never finish last, and developing confidence pushing women's buttons are con tricks to get girls in bed against their will, which is pure nonsense. I wonder then why so few chumps have success with the ladies even to get into even into the simplest and most basic monogamous relationship.

And anyway, it's a strawman. I am not discussing the so-called seduction community here, I did not even evoke it once, but the viabilty - or absence of viability - of polyamory relationships.

I suspect the difference is one of attitude - seeing a woman more as a lock to be picked and less as a relationship to be developed.

I can see how that sort of detachment would work well with poly-ness; indeed, it may be required to an extent. Of course, the woman has to see you in the same light.

Then if to me women are locks to be picked up, then why am I in a relationship for the last two years with my gf? I should be outside lockpicking if I am such a cad.

Are there PUAs whose only interest is to get laid as much as possible with no regards with the girls' well-being? Assuredly. I won't deny it, cads, pricks, and players are there. But these are usually the beginners and the immature gits. "Power" does corrupt, if I can say so.

After a while, though, many of more mature out there get tired pretty quickly of scoring in serial without developping any meaningful experience or relationship, and so they settle into a relationship of their choice - either mono or poly.

But this time, they are the ones who have the leisure to pick which girl is the more suited to their personality and their lifestyle, instead of taking the first woman who gets to say yes to them. I do see that as a long-term benefit for the couple as, as you state, detachment leads to cooler heads and to a more healthy development of intimacy because it remains a choice in the end. If you are detached enough to leave when you feel the relationship is failing, then you tend to stay for the right reasons - because it is fulfilling - and not because you are afraid you will be all alone if you leave.

[Malthus]

Then if to me women are locks to be picked up, then why am I in a relationship for the last two years with my gf? I should be outside lockpicking if I am such a cad.

Are there PUAs whose only interest is to get laid as much as possible with no regards with the girls' well-being? Assuredly. I won't deny it, cads, pricks, and players are there. But these are usually the beginners and the immature gits. "Power" does corrupt, if I can say so.

After a while, though, many of more mature out there get tired pretty quickly of scoring in serial without developping any meaningful experience or relationship, and so they settle into a relationship of their choice - either mono or poly.

But this time, they are the ones who have the leisure to pick which girl is the more suited to their personality and their lifestyle, instead of taking the first woman who gets to say yes to them. I do see that as a long-term benefit for the couple as, as you state, detachment leads to cooler heads and to a more healthy development of intimacy because it remains a choice in the end. If you are detached enough to leave when you feel the relationship is failing, then you tend to stay for the right reasons - because it is fulfilling - and not because you are afraid you will be all alone if you leave.

I'm not saying you are a user or a cad.

My point is merely this: the detatchment we are talking about may have material benefits, but it is a state most folks are neither capable of achieving nor wish to achieve.

Certainly, it would be of material benefit to cooly choose a mate (whether a casual encounter or better, long-term) according to the dictates of reason alone - "reason" meaning what is best for me (and, presumably, best for her) - a "pareto-optimal" relationship, as it were; and to parting just as easily without rancor when a more "pareto-optimal" partner or relationship becomes available, as you say. 

However, it is difficult to imagine such a relationship having any great depth of committment or feeling. There are, as the saying goes, always more fish in the sea; there is always going to be 'something better' one *could* get. A relationship without any depth to it and no great emotional commitment is not what most people find fulfilling. Nor is it any great basis for doing long-term projects together, such as making major decisions as to where to live, buying a house, or having children - the sort of quotidian things that most people find significant in their lives.

I suspect that, more than fearing being alone, many people fear that they aren't particularly special or important; that they can very easily be replaced, and that if they die, no-one will notice or care. The terms for this are various: "alienation", "atomization", "commodification" (often used in various flavours of Marxism) spring to mind. A society in which one's intimate relations are selected on the basis of rational pareto-optimality and discarded just as easily would be, for most, people, extremely alienating.   

[Martinus]

The reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

The real issue is whether folks are, or are likely to be, happier with some sort of exclusive arrangement (whether this is actually permanent or merely intended to be). I suspect that, where there is an assumption of equality, the answer is gonna be "yes" for most. Multiples have historically worked best where there was no intention that the parties be equal, as in either some sort of harem or in an arrangement where a patriarchal man (usually) has acknowledged mistresses and the wife is expected not to mind.

The insistance on truthfulness, openness, non-jealousy and equality which is the basis of modern poly theory sounds great - utopian in fact. The problem appears to be that very few are really capable of sufficient detachment to be fully truthful, fully open, free from jealosy and totally equal. 

Indeed, such detachment appears to me only possible if one views sex as being essentially unimportant to a relationship, the equivalent of mutually enjoying a good meal or a nice movie, stripped free of romantic pretensions and ego-affirmation. I'm not sure I'd want that. The reward of variety doesn't seem to be worth the loss of meaning.

To be honest, I also think that there are some difficulties I have not envisaged earlier when you have a heterosexual couples, that do not exist when you have, say, gay men.

[Jacob]

How can you be open and honest and communicate with a woman to get eventually in a polyamory relationship, if you can't get in her pants first?

Seriously?  For real?  The prerequisite to open honest communication is fucking?  And the objective of open honest communication is to get into a polyamorous relationship?  I hope that's not what you think, but it's what you're saying and it's pretty shit.

But of course, to Mr Jacob nice guys never finish last, and developing confidence and pushing women's buttons to get her interest level go up are all con tricks to get girls in bed against their will, which is pure nonsense. I wonder then why so few chumps have success with the ladies even to get into even into the simplest and most basic monogamous relationship, if Jacob is so right.

If you're a chump, adding a few "PUA techniques" to your repertoire does not make you a not-chump, even if you get laid.  There's nothing wrong with wanting and trying to get laid and if you want to be a man-slut, go to town.  If you need to use pseudo-psychology and poorly formulated evolutionary behaviour theory as a crutch to get laid, then alright, but once you start thinking that that crutch represents some sort of brilliant truth or profound insight you're a fucking chump.

And anyway, it's a nice strawman you've built for us, Jacob. I am not discussing the so-called seduction community here, I did not even evoke it once, but the viabilty - or absence of viability - of polyamory relationships.

It's a strawman to remember your previous posts on a related topic and relate them to the current topic of discussion?  I don't think so.  And it's directly relevant because you're using the same reasoning and "theoretical framework" (ramshackle as it may be) to approach both topics.

In summary:

Poly?  Sure, if it's your thing and you can make it work.  Good luck.

Man-slut?  Sure, if you think that's what you want and you're not a dick about it.  Have your fun.

Thinking that understanding a smattering of manipulative self-help techniques gives you some sort of profound insight into human nature?  Bunch of shit.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Jacob wins the thread.